Posts Tagged ‘Cruelty’

SURVIVAL IS BEST & DEFINES SUPERIOR CIVILIZATION… With A Little Help From The Dark Side (Thus, Cruelty).

April 3, 2020

Centuries Of Continuous Wars, And Apparent “Cruelty” Created What The Franks, Rescuing Civilization, Called “Europe”:

When the empire of the Romans collapsed, their closest Federates, the Franks, took over, conquering Gallia, then Germania, Lombardia, and basically all of Europe, “renovating the Empire of the Romans”, as they put it. Then the Franks pushed away the invading Muslims out of southern France, northern Spain. Later France and her Angevins and Normans conquered England, and freed Italy, Sicily and other islands from the occupying Muslims. Then, for a millennium, the superpowers of Europe were squabbling France and her subsidiary and colony, Britain. For a while, all too Catholic and Inquisition wrecked Spain became all too wealthy and uppity, having conquered the Americas. Spain then fought France (in Italy) and then France and Britain all over, resulting in the creation of the Netherlands.


Part of The Problem Was That The Concept of Progress Changed:

The fanatical Christians, put in charge by Roman emperor Theodosius I, were of the opinion, as Augustine put it around 410 CE, that collapsing the City of Rome was the key to fostering the City of God. The City of God against the pagans… Latin: Dē cīvitāte Deī contrā pāgānōs. That was a declaration of war against most of the population, as most of the population was “pagan” (which meant “peasant”).

For the Christian bishops in power around 400 CE, “progress” was to outlaw the death penalty (and free, or secular thinking). Thus brigands knew they would not be punished (enough) to stop them. The highways became completely unsafe, and trade collapsed. The army couldn’t be paid anymore. This was the result:

Dark Side failure: Rome proximally collapsed because its Dark, Most Cynical Side collapsed. When superstitious Do-Goodism, known as Christianism took over, in 381 CE, cruelty, the Dark Side and the tough edge to human inquiry were outlawed, under the penalty of death. As it turned out, catastrophic, most cruel calamity followed: CIVILIZATION COLLAPSED. Invasions followed the establishment of the Catholic dictatorship, to the point that the same individuals, for example the Visigoth king Alaric, were in charge. Alaric defeated the secular forces in 394 CE, under Theodosius nominal command. The same Alaric sieged and took the city of Rome in 410 CE.


Concepts Like “Civilization” and “Progress”, Even “Common Sense” Fell, When The USA Took Over:

So France and Britain ruled for (most of) nine centuries. Then in the Twentieth Century, fascist, uppity Germany made attempts to take over Western Europe by force. The child of France and Britain, the USA, was all too friendly to Germany… in part because not only was there money to be made, but also parents to be replaced. 

The end result is that the USA won the Second World War, even pushing its cynicism to use its dog, Stalin, to watch over half of Europe. US master minds made sure that, in countries such as France, influencers would be on the payroll. Hence an entire generation of European thinkers appeared, who brainwashed We The People that progress, education, instruction, independance, common sense, basic decency were all notions so relative, than “superior” or “inferior”, or even “civilization”, or “better”, were not absolute.


Kathleen Hawes Watkins And in the absence of consensus on “progress” and “common good” – – we live in a pluralistic/multi-polity reality – – our prime directive is/should always be to avoid cruelty. 

Cruelty is taking pleasure in applying the Dark Side. But the fact is, sometimes, the Dark Side needs to be applied (see the war against Nazi Germany). And it would be difficult, ethologically speaking, to feel inclined to apply it, from duty alone. 

As I explained above, banning cruelty is very close to banning the Dark Side, our main servant to destroy bad tribes like the Nazis, or bad ideas, such as Stalinism or Theodosius’ Catholicism. 

Kathleen gave a link to Aeon, a Pluto financed site (which has blocked some of my comments, and now all comments, apparently):

Shklar defined “liberalism”[0]: something crucial to the established US order, the plutocratic elite in charge for more than a century now. US pseudo-leftists define themselves as “liberal“. 

Shklar is a Harvard professor… Need I say more? That means the establishment established that she was a positive contribution to… the establishment. Indeed Shklar obsesses about something called “liberalism“, defined as no fear (to outrage common sense), no favor (to We The People). “Liberalism” became the ideology of global plutocracy, starting way back with US plutocrats financing and helping Hitler, and blossomed with global plutocrats instrumentalizing the Chinese dictatorship… whose latest export is seen to be a carefully, and secretly nurtured virus..

In Shklar, we are contemplating a buttress of the establishment here, not a thinker throwing light on obscure yet crucial subjects. Comparing her to Montaigne, as some have done, is silly: Montaigne was NOT a university professor. If he had been, he would have had to make a career of only thinking about pleasing the establishment, and thus would not have been Montaigne [1]. That doesn’t mean Montaigne was a saint. Far from it: he was a Catholic… But a Catholic very friendly and tight with two of the greatest thinkers and benefactors of humanity: feminist author and Queen of France Marguerite de Navarre, and her husband, king of Navarre, and, after a while, of France.

So the establishment tells us that the ultimate evil, the summum malum, the sum of mal, is… cruelty? [2] What is cruelty? The pleasure provided by the deliberate infliction of pain and suffering? What is more human? Humanity has been the ultimate predator for millions of years. That means, humanity evolved in an ecology where the greatest danger to a human being was other human beings not in their own tribe. Also, human life, in part as a result of this, but also to bring down cattle and overawe lions was most optimal when tribal. Hence tribalism is part of the inherent mental organization of human, just as much as the love (the tribe)-hate (the other tribe) nature of human ethology.

To bemoan it, while being part of the mighty Harvard tribe, or any other established tribe, is hypocritical. A philosopher, the genuine article, civilization class, is a tribe of one (this dismisses Plato and Aristotle, nota bene, as Plato was Athenian aristocracy and Aristotle Macedonian plutocrat… Not to say Aristotle is not important and not a good historian of science, or good observationalist).

I am always beyond uneasy when I come across Jews who bemoan cruelty and the Dark Side: they understood nothing from The Holocaust. The Holocaust happened precisely because all too many Jews claimed that, to be a fair and decent human being, one had to deny the existence of cruelty and the Dark Side. They exist, instead, and are intrinsic, one may as well deny death… to which they are closely related. Cruelty and the Dark Side are part of the architecture of death, as managed by humanity. Claiming no architecture is needed is denying the essence of humanity.

Watch the civilized doing triage during COVID 19, for further instruction.


One third of European Jews survived, because starting with the French and followed by the British, bombers were sent over German cities to kill German babies. Among other cruel objectives. The Germans didn’t like that. When the Germans invaded France in May 1940, their army consisted of more than six million soldiers, fueled by Soviet oil. 

Later, when the Nazis invaded and then struggled in the Soviet Union, the attacking army consisted of just three millions. It didn’t work out so well, unsurprisingly: the Nazis had too little oil and soldiers to tackle the USSR. Why so few men attacking the USSR? 

Another million German soldiers were manning the giant German anti-aircraft defence system against British bomber streams coming at night. At some point, defeating Nazi radar, British raid after British raid burned to a crisp in a deliberately set firestorm, the city of Hamburg. The fire storm was made so that civilians in underground shelters would die too.

This is how Auschwitz was liberated, by killing lots of German babies, and this is why not all Jews were not killed. The Soviets, who marched into Auschwitz, profited from absolutely gigantic US aid, given to them, free of charge; so Americans are often under the impression that to fight a war, one just needs to be industrious. No. First, one needs to be cruel. Cruel against oneself, first of all as one goes to destroy evil, la fleur au fusil.

Patrice Ayme



[0] Judith N. Shklar defining “liberalism” (in other words, Bushism, Reaganism, Clintonism, Obamaism; I put “Bush” first as dynasty founder Prescott Bush served Hitler in the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s…):“Every adult should be able to make as many effective decisions without fear or favor about as many aspects of her or his life as is compatible with the like freedom of every other adult. That belief is the original and only defensible meaning of liberalism.”

It’s of course a lie, Shklar is a liar, or incompetent, or both. Dynasties are all over the USA, especially where Shklar taught… So “favor” rules… And “fear” too: thousands of my comments were banned over the years, I was banned from sites, and even got government threats, just for my cogent discourses, where the guiding light is truth, and nothing but the truth, in full… People banned from academia for not respecting the guideline of respecting the establishment. The establishment even tried to do this to professor Raoult, for daring to say all too many truths about the COVID 19 pandemic.


[1] So what of Buridan, Rabelais, and Galileo? They were famous thinkers, iconoclasts, and still extremely famous university professors, all with great philosophical dimension? Doesn’t that disprove my theory that, to be a famous philosopher, one needs to be out of the university system? The answer is simple: Buridan, circa 1350 CE was adviser to four French kings, head of the university and lover to the queen, That gave him mental freedom. The situation of Rabelais was somewhat similar: a most famous professor of surgery, top of tops in Paris. And Galileo was childhood friend to the Pope (Galileo’s travails came in part of his bad character and arrogance; he didn’t understand tides, but make sure to tell his friend the Pope that his tide theory was wrong; he also got into astronomical fights with Jesuits)


[2] “It seems to me that liberal and humane people, of whom there are many among us, would, if they were asked to rank the vices, put cruelty first. Intuitively they would choose cruelty as the worst thing we do.”

Judith N. Shklar wrote.

OK, so what do we get from that? Shklar is cruel: that’s the worst thing she and her kind do. That’s her problem. I would define myself as potentially cruel, but would not say that “cruelty is the worst thing we do”, because, although I have seen cruelty applied to me (like in having my young uncle assassinated, or throwing a bomb or fatwa my way)… I do not know of a case where I exhibited cruelty much greater than smashing mosquitoes or using soap against viruses… But I have no doubt that, to become part of the establishment one has to partake in serious cruelty, so, indeed, Shklar has got to be cruel, as she readily admits. But then how come does she believe she is in position to teach us that we do it too? Who taught her that? Jesus Christ, the hero of Anglo-Saxon “liberalism”.

Patrice Ayme


Shakespeare Versus Sade

January 7, 2016

Why were the English, or even the Spanish and the Portuguese so much more successful in establishing a world empire than the French? On the face of obvious facts, it’s curious that France did not do better. Nowadays Latin America speaks Spanish or Portuguese, entire continents are English-speaking. Only some of the wastes of Africa speak French. How come? Why did France not grab a continent for herself? Was France… too civilized? Is too much civilization an infection?

France was the most powerful, most populous, most innovative, most central, not to say most belligerent, of the European countries, for at least 13 centuries… Besides being the creator of Europe since 360 CE (election of Julian). France led a healthy reaction against Christian terrorism, and became the center of military and imperial power which made Western Europe one (rather united, “Christian”) civilization.

Too Much Civilization Goes To The Wolves

Too Much Civilization Goes To The Wolves

And, precisely, more civilization and more centralization may have been the problems, which made France come short. If one is too civilized, one may respect the Natives so much, that one may forget to take their place. This is clearly what happened to the French in Canada. The French civilized and settled the Hurons. Then the Iroquois Confederacy came down from the mountains, and exterminated the pacified Hurons. And so on. Turkeys cannot built a civilization under the watchful eyes of lions.

If one is more centralized, while civilized, one will be unable to exploit the Natives as required for a successful settlement, in a timely manner.

True, Louis XIV, the famous Sun-Tyrant, made “legalized” slavery in the French West Indies, with the “Code Noir”. However, there was no slavery in French Canada and Louisiana, while slavery was lawful in English colonies, starting with Massachusetts…to immense economic success: some English American states were mostly people by African slaves cultivating tobacco, under the white whip, terrorized by their white masters. Tobacco had made English America profitable.

So what the difference in the imperial patterns of various European powers? Moods. Basically, the French had too little too late, of the … Dark Side. I mean real Dark: the king of Portugal harassed the Pope to obtain a Papal authorization to enslave Africans (Frankish law forbid to enslave Europeans explicitly, and Charlemagne had created the Papal state). Their Catholic Majesties, Isabella and Ferdinand harassed Borgia, a fellow Spaniard and Pope to authorize the Inquisition (then used to exterminate Judaism and Islam in the Iberian peninsula). Portugal and Spain were then ready to lash out. A planned crusade to exterminate Islam, was redirected more profitably towards the conquest of the Americas.

How come the greater friendliness of the English government to the Dark Side? Not coincidentally,  the rise of Shakespeare and of the West Country Men was simultaneous in England. And they were entangled: the (ex-Scottish) King James I, one of the West Country Men (basically) supported Shakespeare. (As Dominique Deux said) the success of Shakespeare comes from his parade of monsters.

Shakespeare, just as Allah in the Qur’an (following Yahweh in the Bible), made monstrosity honorable. Thus monstrosity became a strategy at the ready, something normal to do.

One may object that it’s not clear why monstrosity worked so well for the English and not so well for the Muslims.

Well, as a metaphysics of war, Islam was superb: the initial Muslim empire went from France, through Spain, North Africa, all the way to Central Asia and India, within 89 years of its launch in 732 CE. On the way it defeated the two most powerful empires outside of China, annihilating one, eating more than half of the other.

The feat was renewed later: in the Eleventh Century, the Turks, a decade or two after converting to Islam, defeated three large empires in West Central Asia, including a mauling of the Roman empire (which called the Franks to the rescue, launching the crusades).

So Islam’s monstrous side is excellent to motivate primitives for war.

This is proven as we speak: yesterday and today, January 7 2016, two Jihadist attacks in France (some terrorists tried a car attack against soldiers, no doubt inspired by happenings in Israel, and another attacked policemen with a meat cleaver, screaming “Allah Akbar”, and carrying a fake explosive belt, he was shot to death).

However, fanaticism does not rise to the motivation and power of free, knowledgeable men, as Islam’s crushing defeats at the hands of the Franks (starting in 721-732-748 CE), would prove in the next 13 centuries). Or the reconquest of Ramadi from the Islamist State by the Iraqi army and Sunni tribes.

So how come the English were so successful: it’s simple: in the case of the English, monstrosity was an adjuvant. I was listening to the Queen’s 2016 message the other day. She charmingly, succeeded to quietly claim that her family invented Christmas (a 4,000 year old tradition). She was completely unfazed by the monstrosity of her claims. (One could easily imagine her claiming Macbeth invented Christmas, just as unfazed.)

Monstrosity worked well as an adjuvant to other, more democratic structures in society, such as Common Law, Parliament, the Monarchy, with the oath to it that all males had to take at 14 of faithfulness to the King. In the case of the Qur’an, the Qur’an was all there was. Interpreted literally, the Qur’an is unbalanced monstrosity 100% of the time (with the major inconvenience that everybody can be suspected of apostasy, something punished by death).

Admiring Macbeth’s statement that life… is a tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury, signifying nothing, is a perfect slogan to go kill Irishmen (as the West Country Men did). And then American Natives (as the colonies founded by the West Country Men in America soon did).

Make no mistake: the Bible is full of genocides. Just as the Qur’an, which it inspired, it enables major monsters, bent on holocaust, to claim they are doing God’s will. Shakespeare is a secular version of the same mood with which to handle the world.

In the USA, many a school children spent an entire year studying Shakespeare shaking his spears all over human society (Shakespeare himself made jokes about the spear in his name, wanting it as his coat of arms).

Some could sneer that Sade wrote worse things. True. And actually I do think that writing terrible things is not just good, and instructive, but fights boredom, and feeds the mind. However, the obsessive exposition of Anglo-Saxon children to Shakespeare (or the Queen and her grotesque lies), while presenting that author as the epitome of classical humanism is deeply wrong.

Sade did not claim to extol classical humanism as he described horrors with relish. He was actually highly critical. Differently from Shakespeare the bard, about whom we know little, we know very well that Sade played a major role in the 1789 Revolution (including instigating the attack against the Bastille). Not just that, but he personally saved thousands (and got nearly executed for his troubles, escaping at the last moment thanks to the coup against Robespierre).

Sade’s main theme is that man is (potentially) immensely cruel, and politicians even more so, as they need cruelty, just to relax.

Power is cruelty, and absolute power is absolute cruelty.

A society where spears are shaken all the time, does not just shoots itself in the foot, or the head, very much. It also shoots everything that is in the way, all too readily. Shakespeare is viewed by the Anglo-Saxons as classical, while some of what is viewed as his most classical parts is just as bad, if not worse, than the worse in Sade (who, at least, was conscious of cruelty, while extolling it). The same objection can be made, and should be made, against the devout followers of the Bible, the Qur’an, and other various books of horrors. They say it’s classical, and should be respected.

No. Those books are classical, they should be known, but then they should be debated, fiercely, and dragged in the mud, as needed. Identify, condemn, and cut off the gangrene, the gangrene of the mind, as needed.

The West Country Men, powerful plutocrats as they were, sent soldiers and “endured servants” (white slaves) to America to make a profit. The French founded Canada for the “Mission Civilisatrice” (mostly). The West Country Men, operating in connivence with Justice, sent derelicts and miscreants to America. The French government carefully selected a moral elite to go to America, help the Natives.

However, in the real world, the sheep, however clever and cultivated, does not vanquish the lion. The former eats grass, the latter, sheep. It’s as simple as that. One lesson? Instead of just criminally prosecuting Africans, the International Court of Justice in La Hague should think about engaging a procedure against ex-president G. W. Bush, for instigating so many war crimes in iraq. Then, logically, the ICJ should move against the Saudis and all those businessmen doing business with them.

Indeed. Think about it. Culture without claws and fangs, and the will to use them, is only a betrayal of civilization.

In the Sixteenth Century, the Conquistadores enslaved the Indians, made them dig for oil, grow food for them. After they exterminated the Indians this way, they brought African slaves. When, finally the Frenchman Charles Quint, Spanish king and Roman emperor was forcefully appraised of the extent of the Holocaust by men of conscience (Bartolome Las Casas, etc.), the emperor autocratically ordered a halt to the Conquista (after a supreme tribunal got hung up). Otherwise all the Americas would be speaking Spanish.

Then Charles V retired. His son, Philip II, was less French. When Philip learned of French (Protestant) colonies along the “Carolina” coast, he sent an armada to exterminate them to the last French baby. A French relief fleet was dispersed by a hurricane (showing that god, were it to exist, is not friend of goodness). The French babies got killed, down to the last one (although some may have been rescued by Indians).

Not defending goodness with fang and claw surrenders it to the wolves. The good human is not an inert human. Goodness cannot just be lauded, it needs to be defended. Being inert, is inhuman.

Patrice Ayme’


August 1, 2015

The Dark Side of humanity makes sense. As long as this terrible truth is covered up, it will fester, promoting the deepest infections, as it does. The Dark is not just obscure, vicious, cruel: ignoring it prevents the Enlightenment to proceed further.

Thanks to taxpayer money, a giant Ariane V rocket launched the Rosetta Mission to a comet, more than ten years ago. In France plutocrats pay taxes at several times the rate of the (lightly taxed plutocrats of the) USA. Taxes make a mission such as Rosetta and its lander Philae, possible (French experiments are also at the core of the present and future NASA Mars landers).

Science feeds the Enlightenment, with hard facts, so does history. History, inasmuch as the part of it consisting of hard facts, is part of science, and also feeds the Enlightenment.

Hunting, torturing & killing Give Many Of Us Meaning

Hunting, torturing & killing Give Many Of Us Meaning

[Assyrian Lion Experiencing Severe Technical Difficulties, 27 Centuries Ago.]

Now the lander Philae, busy in a hole somewhere on the complicated ground of the comet, where it gets sun occasionally, feeding its batteries, has found complex organic materials on the surface. Such complex compounds eventually turned into living organisms here on Earth. Philae found that they must have existed in much of the early solar system. This raises new hopes of finding life beyond our planet. Indeed, several planetary bodies (Europa, Ganymede, Enceladus, etc.) harbor liquid water. It seems that Europa’s ocean is more massive than Earth’s. Ganymede’s ocean seems to be most of the Solar System’s water (with a depth of 800 kms). The recent discovery of fishes (!) 850 kilometers from the open sea (and the sun!) under an Antarctica iceshelf, below the freezing point of sweet water, indicates that Earth’s life could be adapted to Jupiter’s satellites.

After philosophers on some obscure site, censored me for allegedly veering off a comment presenting a story hinging on a story about stories, and a Malaysian Airlines jet debris was found at the (French) Reunion Island, having also severely veered off course, being at Reunion, 180 degrees from its original destination China, comic relief is in order.

Is amusement provided by plutocrats who shower themselves in public, to advertise that they give what’s for them pennies for research on Charcot’s disease (Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis)? Is it funny that plutocrats believe we are so dumb that clowning around will enable them to disguise themselves into the innocuous clowns whom they are the exact opposite of? Who wants to heavily tax innocuous clowns? Bill Gates and Mr. Z from Facebook correctly believe no one will. So they monkey around, hoping we will do the same. It deeply evil to depict the Gates of Hell as fun and games.

What we need to do with plutocrats is to eliminate them all together, with harrowing taxation. Until they succumb, and disappear as a species. Then research in ALS, biology and medicine, could be funded appropriately. Only then. Moreover, we will also have enough money to send missions searching for life to Europa and Enceladus (the technology exists: a probe flying through an Enceladus geyser, or the attending ring, would find proof of life readily). With a tiny part of the money we will have left, we can go watch real circuses.

Giant money makes for one gigantically nasty world. Big money is simply insufferable.

Money is power, power on other people, giant money is giant power on other people. Giant power on other people is intrinsically inhuman (it’s not anticipated by ten million years of evolving human ethology).

Giant power by people on other people is intrinsically diabolical. Diabolical, in the divine sense. Giant power on other people, such as Bill Gates imposing on us his pseudo-clownish behavior, provides the Dark Side with an aspect which evolution itself did not anticipate, so that there is a super-stitious character to it: something which stands above reality, as anticipated by evolution, since before there was T-Rex, and it tore its prey in half.

The Dark Side reaches all over. Including “care”.

Big money brought us Obamacare. Obamacare was going to be the way the “free” market buys and sells us to perfect health care, through “consumers’ choices”. Obamacare was enthusiastically promoted by the likes of Paul Krugman. In the latest news, health care in the USA became 5.5% more expensive in 2014 (whereas incomes did not perk up). Obamacare was not what it seemed. Lies everywhere, not just to manipulate power, but as the fluttering flags, representing the rule of that power, for all to see.



So this rich American dentist went to Africa, offered the natives $50,000, and killed the most famous lion in the local national park. Excuse me, we are Americans, and we believe in drone philosophy: we kill whoever, whatever we want, because we can. Anything can be bought, remember? Just as Bill Gates and Facebook’s Mr. Z keep their taxes low, by taking showers in public.  All over, things are not what they look.

So why did this dentist kill this beautiful lion? Some claim it’s senseless. Senseless makes for a good insult, because it’s polite enough. However, “senseless” is a non sequitur. If one really wants to penetrate the mind of one’s opponent, and his error, one has to find in which sense, he makes sense (to his, or her, self).

It makes no sense to claim there is no sense to what so many people (hunters, warriors, plutocrats) feel makes sense. Figuring out how it makes sense, to them, far from being senseless, aggravates their case. Because it allows us to condemn, not just their acts, but also the systems of thought, moods, and minds, which brought these errors.

The lion was killed because it was beautiful and powerful. And not just that. Cecil the Lion was tortured, so that his power would be debased, over many hours. Shot first with a powerful modern bow, the lion was tracked down for 40 hours, and one can imagine Walter the dentist drinking martinis, chuckling on the lion’s suffering. Because Walter the dentist kills animals, has killed many animals, with bow and arrows. Not just to give animals a chance to survive, but, obviously, to give them a chance, and to give him the chance, to experience torture. Whereas a rifle shot tends to be very incapacitating, be it only from blood loss, old Assyrian, or Persian iconography represents lions full of arrows, and still fierce (see above). In the Wild West white men found themselves so full of arrows they looked like porcupines, and still, they were not dead. That brought more respect to Native Americans. (Although a modern bow can launch an arrow with some much force that it can go through a Polar Bear harassed by dogs, killing it in three seconds… This situation does not apply to a lion, which is much faster and limber, hence a poor target.)

A major motivation for human beings is to kill, maim, torture, oppress and subjugate. Forgetting that major fact, is forgetting human nature. Gates and Facebook’s Mr. Z have that major motivation, nearly all plutocrats have it, and, when he feeds us with lies about Obamacare, Paul Krugman has it, in his own meek, but highly influential way.

A few days ago, I surprised a lynx in the Alps (I know when and where to look for predators). I was very surprised by its color (reddish), and its enormous size. It fled for his life (we were only 3 meters apart). He was really fast, in the forest full of trees, with trunks of all sizes close to each other… And in total silence (differently from any other animal that size). Here I was, putting to flight an animal capable of slashing open the throat of a red deer, three times my weight, and with giant antlers.

Lynxes are known not to attack humans, even when their cubs are approached.



Human beings evolved because not only they could hunt, and eat meat, but because they could terrorize their main opponents, the wild, ferocious predators. Torturing them helped. Bushmen, in South Africa could hunt a large animal, such as a giraffe, with poisoned arrows, chasing it down, once wounded, over an entire week.

Thus, torturing and killing are deep components of the human mind. They were key to survival. I have walked towards a lion pride resting below a tree, in Africa, as a child. Slowly. Just as slowly, the lionesses rose, and walked away. The king and queens of the jungle know well, most of the time, that human beings are like gods: they are better left alone, their parents taught them that, early on.

Now that we know this, that large predators can be instilled respect for human beings, we can take it into account, and reintroduce megafauna. Exerting surveillance for the most dangerous cases.

That lion killing dentist is a coward. Not a real player. Assassinating wildlife with over-powerful weapons  is not getting reacquainted with the human condition. Were it the latter, he would accept not just to hunt, but to be hunted. Let him approach lions with bare hands (I did this more than once, as a child, in the wild). Instead of armed with a hyper-powerful bow with a laser range finder. Hunting the cowardly dentist ought to help him get in touch with full human ethology. So those condemning him all over the Internet are helping him become a real man.

Paying $50,000 to kill a well-known, half-tamed lion equipped with GPS, is not a way to exhibit respect for the biosphere. Yet, one should not forget that wild mega fauna will not survive if it is NOT worth the cost it inflicts, in physical damage and terror.

Lions (and other ferocious beasts: panthers, elephants, hippos, buffaloes, warthogs, etc.) are dangerous, and, themselves exert terror deliberately (when they do not outright kill people). When I lived in Africa, the natives feared and wanted to get rid of leopards (once in India, a particular leopard killed more than 200 people). Equipping leopards with GPS hooked to computers and security is the future. Clearly such systems (already used in Alberta, Canada, with grizzlies) are expensive in equipment and trained rangers.

As such an activity provides with the basics of hunting, just as fishing and releasing fish, it can satisfy the Dark Side, and make it serve the goodness of a preserved biosphere. But not just this. Exploiting animals is all right, if it allows them to survive as species, and ecosystems.

For dangerous predators, and other ferocious beasts to survive, they have to provide people with some other things dearer to them than life itself. That is why it was a mistake to destroy (as was just done in New York), tons of elephant ivory. Elephants ought to be harvested for ivory: then they will survive, because they will have economic utility (hence pay for their upkeep… in the wild). Same for rhinos: cut their horns, and sell them, under a government mandated program.

Otherwise, keep on contemplating the most massive genocide in 65 million years.

Morality’s essence? Morality is what worked before, in a sustainable fashion. But, as the world quickly mutates, what worked before cannot work any longer. Let’s adapt our morality. Don’t deny that the Dark Side existed. Don’t pretend that the Dark Side can be made to disappear by wishful thinking alone. Instead, ask what the Dark Side can do for us… that nothing else can replace. (To help focus here, contemplate the young dictator of North Korea, who, not only let his family members be eaten by dogs, but has threatened the USA with nuclear strikes, while working feverishly to make that possible, in spite of UN sanctions.)



Some will whine that this harnessing of the Dark Side is precisely what the “Free Market Theory“, all too often simply a disguise for blossoming plutocracy, claimed one ought to do, while bankers and plutophiles called it the “Invisible Hand“. However, not so. Plutocracy is a mix of the Dark Side, and the generalized fascism which civilization enables, with the potential of concentrating enormous power in a few hands. It is an enemy of intelligence, as it reduces many minds to just one, or a few.

Thus plutocracy is my enemy, and I put some effort in fighting it, because my Dark Side wants to devour it. Revolutions occur when enough denizens of We The People, want to destroy the plutocrats who rule over them.

Contrarily to what the ill-fated John Lennon hypocritically recommended, Revolutions are good, precisely because they destroy those super-predators known as plutocrats, aristocrats, theocrats, pirates, nobles, mandarins, generals, ayatollahs, bishops and the organizations which foster them, when their rule has become an insufferable imposition of their power, or those they serve.

Mao in 1959, in a secret report, revealed much later: it’s better to let half the population die, so that they other half gets plenty. The Dark Side, fully abominable. However this “Great Leap Forward” worked, as Mao had predicted it. Mao had said that great efforts then would bring “a thousand years of happiness“. And the most troubling part is that Mao’s plan worked: China leaped over India, and spectacularly far out over many other countries. The cleaned slate Mao’s unleashing of the Dark Side created obviously helped.

Just like more usage of the Dark Side helps keep the USA on the straighter and narrower, relative to more placid Europe.

Yet, it’s not just justice, and goodness which judge what is insufferable, but, also, the Dark Side itself. And there is more. Voltaire said that we ought to crush infamy. Yet it’s ultimately anger, which gets us into action, which makes us move, which provides with. Thus, the Dark Side judges, and also motivates.

We are mental landscapes of contrast, we need the Dark, be it just to define the Light. Fighting for the latter, means recognizing the former. Our beautiful species can thrive, as long as it respects the laws, be they only the laws of physics (that is not the case now, with multiple attacks we are visiting on the biosphere). To remind us of that, anything goes. And that cruelty, is a good thing, relative to the alternative.

So hunt lions. But only bad lions. Only with the worst predators can destroyed using all and any means the Dark Side puts at our command. The Dark Side, the useful and friendly Dark Side, feels that better case can be made for the survival of the smallpox virus, than for the blossoming of plutocracy. And stands ready to provide us with the strength we need.

And what about the deliberate killing of beauty, in all this? To overcome beauty is an exciting, and rather amusing challenge, for the Dark Side. If one can learn to enjoy killing beauty, one’s Dark Side is ready to take out much more than that. Its power grows. The more beautiful the lion, the more tempting to kill it, the more instructive, for those who cultivate the parts of the brain most keen, and apt, to handle adversity.

The Dark Side is strong and all-devouring. Beauty, just an appetizer. As Rabelais put it in 1534, in Gargantua (chap.5, line 108): “L’appétit vient en mangeant.”

Patrice Ayme’

German Aggression: Atavism Straight From Teutons?

July 12, 2015

A coalition led by Germany persists in trying to prevent Greece from having enough money to operate its economy or, even, health care. Yes, I know, there are many reasons to be teutonically furious against Jews, or Greeks. Yet, inhuman behavior is inhuman behavior. And stupid is stupid. I think it’s timely to give Germans a heads-up, about themselves, that mood they still harbors: the Greek crisis is a good occasion to reject it.

The German State did not pay either the debts it incurred in World War One, or World War Two. Germany paid only for a fraction of the damage it deliberately inflicted in World War One, and finished doing so only a few years ago. Germany did not pay any reparations for the humongous damage it caused in World War Two. Does this make Germans debt specialists?

German Aggression Is Not New: Teutons’ Attack On World, 120 BCE

German Aggression Is Not New: Teutons’ Attack On World, 120 BCE

In 1900 CE, Germany had the highest literacy rate in the world, ever. Still, for all to see, it was falling into barbarity, organizing the holocaust of the Natives in Namibia, under governor Goering, father of WWI’s war hero (who was condemned to hang at Nuremberg).

Thus encouraged by general tolerance, for this special mood, literate German barbarity, Germanofascism went further: a deliberate conspiracy of the top Germans for a surprise world war. A world war conceived to happen so fast, that it would enable a succession of quick victories.

France was to be crushed in weeks, by invading neutral Belgium. Before the vast Russian army could make a serious dent in Prussia. Then Russia was to be destroyed.

What was supposed to happen rather clear: Britain’s Royal Navy could not be defeated (as the Battle of Jutland would demonstrate). Moreover Britain enjoyed a huge empire, let alone a “special relationship” with giant USA. At best, it looked like indefinite war for Germany. And no victory.

Or am I overlooking something? Much of the British elite was pro-German, and pro-Kaiser Kaiser Wilhelm II, Victoria’s grandson, may have imagined that it could come to some agreement: the philosopher Bertrand Russell, heading a herd of cowards and traitors, advocated surrender to the Kaiser so stridently, he was put in jail for 18 months.

Similar insanity nowadays: crushing Greece will bring no victory. Throwing Greece out the Eurozone will make the situation, and the spending, only worse: Greece, like Britain, is in Europe, and won’t go away to Mars, or the South Pacific.

Still a few top Prussians ordered 121 million German speaking people, to war (against France, which had only 38 million citizens). Instead of rebelling against those revolting orders, the Germanoid robots goose stepped, in full order (even the SPD, the “socialist” party)…

Five weeks after the surprise, abominable, war-criminal attack on the world, and invasion of France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Prussian violence met a greater violence. A well planned French counter-attack at the Marne demolished the German dream of taking over the world by force. Quick retreats prevented annihilation of the German armies. The armies stayed entrenched for the next 4 years (when massive French artillery, French and British tanks, and the incoming Yanks, chewed up the German lines).

How did Germany get so crazy? It’s a long story, and a complicated one. Even the Enlightenment, Rousseau, Napoleon and the French Revolution played a role (and not a simple, nor the expected one!)

In the end, one has to go all the way back more than 21 centuries, when the Ambrones, Teutoni and Cimbri decided to attack.

At the last minute, with the last Roman army, brought back from Africa, Consul Marius, ably seconded by Sylla, annihilated the three northern German tribes. To this day, the memory of these formidable battles lives around Aix en Provence, in the names of a formidable mountain, and villages.

Modern Germans claim to be obsessed by order. And it is indeed because of order, also known as fascism, that they could fancy to attack and destroy the world, in 1914, or 1939. However, all what the German obsessive fascination with order as a meta-principle, no other country in the world has caused as much of a mess since 1853 (when Prussia attacked Denmark).

It’s high time to quit the habit. Not enough money fabricated by the European Central Bank, is creating misery and a mess. It may please increasingly senile old Germans that they are the only ones with money. But they will not win that war, so they better surrender now.

Give Greece the money it needs. Don’t forget “aid to Greece” was actually mostly aid to French and German banks. You can read it in IMF documents published already 3 years ago. What’s your problem? Literate, but maybe you can’t read what disturbs your New Order?

Thus, please, stop, hysterical, plutophile austerians, lying like ignorant, malevolent beasts. Think, if you can, about the little Greek children.

Patrice Ayme’  

Dark Plutocracy: Kanun of Man

March 31, 2014

What do plutocrats want? They want a lot of the problems the socio-economy is experiencing today. In other words, we are getting what plutocracy wants. In the conventional view of hell, beings down there inflict suffering. Forever.

Plutocracy wants the starvation of the People’s economic activity, prospects and condition. That allows to increase the gap between the haves and have-nots, which is the plutocracy’s raison d’être, and ultimate value.

Hence the obsession fabricated by the Main Stream Media against deficits. In truth, the deficits are directly related to the plutocracy being not taxed enough.

Hence also the insistence by the MSM that the People has no skills (thus, presumably the unworthy People ought to be starved in all ways, including access to public education, so that, somehow, it would be enticed out of laziness to develop skills…).

Even The Ottomans Could Not Rule Those Mountains

Even The Ottomans Could Not Rule Those Mountains

Workers ought to be punished. Otherwise they would demonstrate that merit can be rewarded. But in a plutocracy, money, power and success come to those who don’t deserve it. It’s the basic moral principle of this inversion of all values.

Paul Krugman deplores that “the belief that America suffers from a severe “skills gap” is one of those things that everyone important knows must be true, because everyone they know says it’s true. It’s a prime example of a zombie idea — an idea that should have been killed by evidence, but refuses to die… by blaming workers for their own plight, the skills myth shifts attention away from the spectacle of soaring profits and bonuses even as employment and wages stagnate. Of course, that may be another reason corporate executives like the myth so much.

So we need to kill this zombie, if we can, and stop making excuses for an economy that punishes workers. …”

Krugman is generous: he believes the zombie idea lives on, just from mental inertia and from peer pressure. My explanation above is much more sinister: many nefarious ideas live on, but not by accident. Instead they live on, mainly because they inflict pain and subjugation.

Where does this cruelty come from? Well, for millions of years, the greatest enemy of man was man, and this environmental fact had plenty of time to become psychobiological.

This can be observed in the mountains of Northern Albania, where the Kanun of Leke rules. The Kanun killed more than 10,000 people since the end of the Albanian dictatorship. The highlanders of the northern Albanian mountains recognize no other law. It was transcribed in the fourteenth century by a Roman Catholic priest (in spite of the Ottoman trying to turn everybody Muslim). The code regulates a variety of subjects, including blood vengeance (a young eye for a young eye, etc.).

Even today, many Albanian regard the Kanun of Leke as the supreme law of the land. The Kanun primes honor over life. The strength of the Kanun, found all over in First Nations, reveals the nature of human psychobiology. Civilization learned to turn around all this psychobiology, with sophisticated laws, engineered to manipulate knowledge efficiently.

Our present plutocratic organization may look far from what has been going for so long in Northern Albania, but it’s not.

A way around? Let citizens suggest their own laws, by forcing to national referendum any proposed initiative that muster four million signatures (say in the USA; this is the proportion used in Switzerland: 100,000 signatures for 8 million).

That would prevent the plutocrats and their oligarchic servants to make laws that, primarily, serve themselves. An example? Chinese President Xi’s family has maybe a billion dollars in overseas property (and hundreds of millions in luxurious residences in Hong Kong alone).

Patrice Aymé

Propaganda: Cruel, But Efficient

January 18, 2014

I subscribe to the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and The Economist (among others). Of the three, the New York Times is, by far, the most efficient propaganda tool of the hyper rich. It’s done in subtle ways. For example Krugman ran a blog post: “January 18, 2014, 12:11 pm. The Myth of the Deserving Rich.

You would think that Paul Krugman would show a graph of the growth of inequality that is recent. Problem: if he did, all fingers would point towards Barack Obama, the great Dark Trojan Horse. So Krugman shows an old graph that safely finishes with the Bush era. (Implicit message: Bush = Inequality.)

Here is a more recent graph about (after tax!) corporate profits.

Obama's Plutocratic Wealth Breakthrough!

Obama’s Plutocratic Wealth Breakthrough!

As you can see, corporate profits, even under plutophiles Clinton and Bush, just, in the end, tracked GDP.

However, under Obama, there has been a breakthrough in after tax inequality. True, Obama controls profits not, but he controls tax (and, looking at the fine print, one sees the jump occurred when the democrats had a super-majority in the Senate and Congress: no hiding behind the Bush!).

Why inequality has grown is not complicated: the hyper rich financiers stole the financial institutions that they were supposed to manage (2008 “Bush Crash”).

Instead of recovering the money from the thieves he was golfing with, Yes-We-Scam Obama found the money in the Public purse. The thieves got to keep what they stole (see Fuld and his two friends at Lehman Brothers, who stole a cool 5 billions between them, while taking out the world financial system).

The exact same trick was implemented in Europe, thanks to the ignorance of the flabbergasted public.

(That’s why the recently proclaimed banking Union in Europe piously asserts that it will not happen again: next time the hyper rich steals everything, they will pay for it, it’s a promise!)

Don’t expect Krugman to explain any of this to you, as long as pitchforks are not visible from his Princeton office. Speaking of Krugman, here he comes in that post I started to describe:

“Many influential people have a hard time thinking straight about inequality. Partly, of course, this is because of Upton Sinclair’s dictum: it’s hard for a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.

Part of it is because even acknowledging that inequality is a real problem implicitly opens the door to taking progressive policies seriously. But there’s also a factor that, while not entirely independent of the other two, is somewhat distinct; I think of it as the urge to sociologize.”

Sounds good? But what is this “sociologize”? And what with that old graph? Did Krugman saw nothing new ever since The One became president and had dinner with him?

Notice that the corporations’ “profits” in the graph I posted are what’s left after the CEO class has been paid pharaonic salaries. Marissa Maier, a blonde at Yahoo, just gave a severance package to a man she had recruited a year ago, for a fortune. It’s in excess, that severance, just that severance, not the signing bonus, of 42 million dollars.

Marissa has done well, and will receive her own colossal severance one of these days soon. Then, now that she is hyper rich, she can go to another hyper salaried CEO job, or do her duty and become a “philanthropist”, or a politician.

Did Barack Obama visit Marissa Meier’s Silicon Valley mansion? Of course. Slept there, ate there, beamed giant smile, etc. The whole gamut: people of wealth, and taste. That was when Marissa was at Google, an apparent subsidiary of the NSA. Hey, she was just at the White House, to talk about that with Barack. No blood, no foul.

By “socializing” Krugman means the theory that the poor  is poor, because it deserves to be poor, as it lives badly (dysfunctional families, drugs, unwillingness to learn, etc.). Krugman concludes disjointedly, by adopting some of what I said over the years:

“This is, by the way, why the Occupy slogan about the one percent is so brilliant. I would actually argue that the number should be even smaller. But one percent is an easy to remember number, and small enough to make it clear that we’re not talking about the upper middle class.

And that’s good. The myth of the deserving rich is, in its own way, as destructive as the myth of the undeserving poor.”

I sent the following comment, among the early ones.  Although more than 100 comments were published, mine was not. One has to know the New York Times is owned by the same plutocratic family since the Nineteenth Century.

Not publishing my comment allows the New York Times to claim I need to be watched, and carefully censored, as I am what it calls “unverified”. I am indeed, officially under a surveillance program at the New York Times! Here is my censored comment:

There are some people who earn their lives well, and then there is the plutocratic phenomenon.  The two concepts are distinct.

One would assume that most creatures contributing regularly to Krugman’s  blog live well enough to find the time to do so (I have contributed more than $10,000 to the New York Times’ coffers over the years).

The plutocratic phenomenon is something completely different. It has to do with the exponential growth of wealth and power. It can only be prevented by punishing taxes at the very top (the .1% and .01%). Eisenhower had a 93% tax bracket, at the very top.

As it is now all these myths Krugman talks about, and condemns, live on because plutocrats control the media, and are, unsurprisingly, plutophile.

For example, California Governor Brown organized, and won, a referendum to rise a tiny bit taxes on the 1%. Last week California papers had front page stories about the rich fleeing the state. In big black capital letters. Spending the time to read the article (it was basically the same article all over) showed nothing of the sort. But, to the common citizen in the street, what was impressed was the flight of the hyper rich due to a 1% augmentation of tax on the 1%…

That was, of course, a propaganda operation. The sob stories about the hyper rich selling their commercial centers to flee a 1% tax are just implausible.

Effective propaganda is subtle enough to not be seen by Common Wisdom. Thus we have to keep on digging in to find out how it is that the serfs willingly serve the great Lords.

This was my censored comment. At first sight, it does not look that terrible. The question is: what was so subterraneously, unconsciously terrible in my comment above that was worth censoring?

The fact that, having got a subscription for decades, at the same street address, the New York Times persists in calling me “unverified” is a lie? And that all can see this lie, as I allude to the extravagant cost of my decades of subscription to the NYT?

Or is it the terrible fact that had had to be censored, the sob stories about the hyper wealthy fleeing California. And claiming that they are obviously planted?

Or did I gravely sin when I proposed to follow republican president Eisenhower’s leadership?… And tax the hyper wealthy 93%?

Einstein famously said, a little bit fast, albeit in the context of Quantum Theory: ”Subtle is the Lord, but he is not cruel!”

Well. Einstein was not inclined to be so forgiving for the Germans who had killed the Jews. At least that’s the way Einstein put it to his dear friend Physics Nobel laureate Max Born, when the latter returned to Germany from England. Einstein was not happy that Born acted as if everything had been forgiven.

By refusing to forgive, Albert Einstein recognized something which is true: cruelty is a central part of the human character. Those who deny that are not just stupid, but dishonest and dangerous. Same as the righteous, pseudo-“liberal”, but truly plutophile, New York Times. (That has been splendidly embodied by frantic NYT propaganda for the plutophile health trick set in Massachusetts by Romney, now known as… Obamacare.)

Plutocracy is a phenomenon that rises mechanically when taxes at the top are not colossal enough (Apple pays 2% global tax, the local bookstore, if it has not been devoured by tax dodging Amazon yet, around 30%). Then plutocracy becomes an obvious injustice. Yet, primates are genetically engineered to hate injustice.

So how does the injustice persist? Through sophisticated tricks, as above, motivated by sheer cruelty, will to power, and viciousness. It’s cruel and vicious to censor my rather innocuous comment, but it’s of the essence of those who crave power.

Subtle are the plutocrats, and they are cruel. Cruelty is actually the essence of plutocracy. Welcome to reality.

Patrice Ayme